News and Insights

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur sit amet sem id nisi porta rutrum.

Jerry Williams vs. Golden State Vinters And State Compensation Insurance Fund,

Golden State Vinters and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Jerry Williams WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJERRY WILLIAMS, Applicant, vs. GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, -DefendantsCase Nos. ADJ739750 (FRE 0217695)ADJ3422922 (FRE 0217696)ADJ4620151 (FRE 0217213)OPINION AND ORDERGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONAND DECISION AFTERRECONSIDERATIONAND NOTICE OF INTENTION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS (Labor Code § 5813)            Applicant., Jerry Williams, and defendant, Golden State Vintners, by and through its insurer, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), have both filed petitions seeking reconsideration from the three Findings and Awards, issued June 14, 2010. In ADJ3422922, a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found applicant, while employed as a maintenance mechanic, winery worker, foreman, sustained a cumulative trauma over the period ending May 21, 2003, to his bilateral knees and hearing loss, resulting in a period of temporary disability and 61% permanent disability. In ADJ739750, the WCJ found applicant sustained a specific injury to his right knee on December 20, 2001, resulting in 7% permanent disability. In ADJ4620151., the WCJ found applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury to his cardiovascular system over the period ending September 24, 2002, resulting in a period of temporary disability and 26% permanent disability. with 50% apportionment to “other causes.” In its petition, defendant contends first that the WCJ erred in failing to provide defendant with credit for overpayment of permanent disability in ADJ739750, against the permanentdisability awarded in ADJ3422922, as well as credit of S17,072.85 as stipulated. Next, defendantcontends the award of temporary disability conflicts with the lien of Employment Development Department (EDD) and the fact that applicant received full pay for portions of the period of , temporary disability. Defendant further notes that the lien of FDD was not add


Join our community and never miss an update. Stay connected with cutting-edge insights and valuable resources.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *